A
Case Study in International Relations from the breaking events on the
Russian-Georgian border in August 2008 to highlight the obvious
solution space for interdicting the present unilateral terror on the
Grand Chessboard – a return to real “balance of terror”!

“Hegemony
is as old as mankind.” That pithy statement captures almost
100% of mankind's recorded history. It is either a struggle for, or
against, hectoring hegemons – big and small. And as this
pathetic history of mankind demonstrates, hegemony is only broken
before its natural 'time-constant' with active resistance to it;
never with platitudes or wishful thinking. At its natural
'time-constant' however, hegemony simply collapses (or dies its
natural death) under its own weight of successes, expansions, or
failure to maintain. This natural death of the hectoring hegemons and
their systems of hegemony need not concern us here as their
'time-constant' today is long enough to destroy all or most of
mankind leaving behind only their scurrying interests, and those of
the cockroaches, to contend with each other.

Thus,
the remaining history of mankind only teaches us one insightful
lesson with respect to effective takedown of hegemony –
hectoring hegemons only understand other hectoring hegemons. And, the
effective resistance of fed-up victims with nothing more to lose and
un-willing to take it anymore. Since the mass resistance of the
peoples has been very effectively neutralized worldwide in the modern
age, we are only left with hectoring hegemons battling each other.
What Albert Wohlstetter in 1958 so elegantly captured as “Mr.
Oppenheimer's simile of the two scorpions in a bottle”
[1] to safeguard the fly between them via a precarious “balance
of terror”. In this simile, either or both predators
may be killed, or either may get the meal, or, in a most delicate
balance, all may survive in peace! That is the theme of this report.

Until
08-08-08, there had been no apparent counter-hegemons bold enough,
and courageous enough, to urgently standup to the unipolar superpower
apocalyptically exercising its quest for “full spectrum
dominance” of the entire planet and its outer-regions under the
Orwellian cover of “war on terror”. No nation except the
two without teeth, Iran and Venezuela, even dare to publicly 'call a
spade a spade' and condemn the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan or
the pending American-Israeli primacy upon Iran. A handful of retired
statesmen, like Mahatir Mohammed of Malaysia, and Nelson Mandella of
South Africa, have occasionally added their anemic voices to this
weak rumblings to exactly zero utility. The Georgia-Ossetia
conflagration which was deliberately provoked by the hectoring
hegemons under their own calculus of hegemony, can potentially change
that – and only if the great-game is played with astute
vigilance and full spectrum courage. But not with platitudes,
moralizing, sermonizing, or wishful thinking, such as:

“For
whatever reason, Brzezinski seems to have his own “personal
obsession” with Russia. American hypocrisy and double standards
will not solve anything. What the “west” and the “world”
needs is for America to go home, withdraw its military from around
the globe, and try participating in a multilateral world, using
international institutions, rather than the “full spectrum
dominance” it now uses for its global resource war (oil) now
destroying the Middle East.” (Jim Miles, Deconstructing
Brzezinski’s Russia
[2])

Project
Humanbeingsfirst's two-part report of August 2008, titled
“Georgia-Russia:
It's a Classic Brzezinski Project!”
[3] has already identified this conflagration as a Zbigniew
Brzezinski imprint. The pithy wisdom which titles this present
follow-on report is also the astute observation of this same
grandmaster. It is the very first sentence of Zbigniew Brzezinski's
1996 book “The Grand Chessboard” and aptly sums up
the raison d'être of its entire content. That raison d'être
in turn, is aptly summed up in the book's chauvinistic subtitle:
“American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”.

This
essay fleshes out the theme of hegemony and its only practicable
take-down by beginning with the question: is this “American
Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” a uniquely Brzezinski
thing?

It
can be rather disconcerting to uncover that Zbigniew Brzezinski's
thinking is very closely espoused in his predecessor neoconservative
strategist, Albert Wohlstetter's 1958 Rand Report “The
Delicate Balance of Terror”,
[4] in which this old-timer, long-dead war-mongering, and evidently
mentor to the latter day neo-cons, preached against the complacency
of the “Balance of Terror” doctrine of the Truman
Administration for containing any thermonuclear war with the USSR.
Wohlstetter advocated more along the present day neo-cons' line of
calculated “unilateral terror” as rationally, and
pragmatically, the only effective mechanism of exercising hegemony.
Wohlstetter complained that “balance of terror” in
reality was rather a precarious and dynamic balance, but more
importantly, unnecessarily limited the imperial “creativity”
of the mighty United States into a stalemate. He argued: “If
peace were founded firmly on mutual terror and mutual terror on
symmetrical nuclear powers, this would be, as Churchill has said, "a
melancholy paradox;" nonetheless a most comforting one.”
That “melancholy paradox” was examined in
Project Humanbeingsfirst's report of April 26, 2008 of the new world
order post 9/11, titled: “From
Balance of Terror to Unilateral Terror on the Grand Chessboard!”
[5].

Resuming
from where the grotesque reality-check of that report had left us,
this breaking news of the forced intervention of Russia into Georgia,
if played astutely by the Russian president Vladimir Putin, can lead
to what the empire actually does not want in these times. That is, a
return to “balance of terror”, which is arguably a
far more desirable outcome on the Grand Chessboard from the
untermenschen's point of view bearing the full brunt of the present
day unilateral terror!

Mr.
Putin perhaps does have this reality in mind, or at least appears
aware of its power of equalization, especially if one carefully
parses his measured statements in his interview of August
28, 2008
[6] to CNN where he observed, in response to various pointed
questions:

Begin
Excerpt

Vladimir
Putin: We have serious reasons to believe that there were U.S.
citizens right in the combat zone. If that is the case, if that is
confirmed, it is very bad. It is very dangerous; it is misguided
policy.

But,
if that is so, these events could also have a U.S. domestic politics
dimension.

If
my suppositions are confirmed, then there are grounds to suspect that
some people in the United States created this conflict deliberately
in order to aggravate the situation and create a competitive
advantage for one of the candidates for the U.S. presidency. And if
that is the case, this is nothing but the use of the called
administrative resource in domestic politics, in the worst possible
way, one that leads to bloodshed.

[...]
I have said to you that if the presence of U.S. citizens in the zone
of hostilities is confirmed, it would mean only one thing: that they
could be there only at the direct instruction of their leaders. And
if that is so, it means that in the combat zone there are U.S.
citizens who are fulfilling their duties there. They can only do that
under orders from their superiors, not on their own initiative.

[...]
A little victorious war is needed. And if it doesn't work, then one
can lay the blame on us, use us to create an enemy image, and against
the backdrop of this kind of jingoism once again rally the country
around certain political forces.

I
am surprised that you are surprised at what I'm saying. It's as clear
as day.

[...]
During my eight years as president, I often heard the same question:
What place does Russia reserve for itself in the world; how does it
see itself; what is its place? We are a peace-loving state and we
want to cooperate with all of our neighbors and with all of our
partners. But if anyone thinks that they can come and kill us,
that our place is at the cemetery, they should think what
consequences such a policy will have for them.

Matthew
Chance: Let's go back to the assertion that the U.S. provoked the
war. Diplomats in the United States accuse Russia of provoking the
war by supporting the separatists in Abkhazia and South Ossetia by
arming them, by increasing forces in the territories and by
recognizing their institutions ... basically giving them the green
light to go ahead and operate de facto. Wasn't it Russia that really
caused this conflict?

Vladimir
Putin: I can easily reply to this question. Since the 1990s, as
soon as this conflict started, and it started in recent history
because of the decision of the Georgian side to deprive Abkhazia and
South Ossetia of the rights of autonomy. In 1990 and 1991, the
Georgian leadership deprived Abkhazia and South Ossetia of the
autonomous rights that they enjoyed as part of the Soviet Union, as
part of Soviet Georgia, and as soon as that decision was taken,
ethnic strife and armed hostilities began. At that time, Russia
signed a number of international agreements, and we complied with all
those agreements. We had in the territory of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia only those peacekeeping forces that were stipulated in those
agreements and never exceeded the quota.

The
other side -- I am referring to the Georgian side -- with the support
of the United States, violated all the agreements in the most brazen
way.

Under
the guise of units of the Ministry of the Interior, they secretly
moved into the conflict zone their troops, regular army, special
units and heavy equipment. In fact, they surrounded Tskhinvali, the
capital of South Ossetia, with that heavy equipment and tanks. They
surrounded our peacekeepers with tanks and started shooting at them
point blank.

It
was only after that, after our first casualties and after their
number considerably increased, after tens of them had been killed --
I think 15 or 20 peacekeepers were killed, and there was heavy loss
of life among the civilian population, with hundreds killed -- it was
only after all that that President Medvedev decided to introduce a
military contingent to save the lives of our peacekeepers and
innocent civilians.

What
is more, when our troops began moving in the direction of Tskhinvali,
they came across a fortified area that had been secretly prepared by
the Georgian military. In effect, tanks and heavy artillery had been
dug into ground there, and they started shelling our soldiers as they
moved.

All
of it was done in violation of previous international agreements.

It
is of course conceivable that our U.S. partners were unaware of all
that, but it's very unlikely.

A
totally neutral person, the former Georgian Minister of Foreign
Affairs Ms. Zurabishvili, who is I think a French citizen and is now
in Paris, has said publicly, and it was broadcast, that there was an
enormous number of U.S. advisers and that of course they knew
everything.

And
if our supposition that there were U.S. citizens in the combat zone
is confirmed -- and I repeat, we need further information from our
military -- then these suspicions are quite justified.

Those
who pursue such a policy toward Russia, what do they think? Will they
like us only when we die?

End
Excerpt

That
sarcastic concluding remark by Putin sums up the Russian
comprehension of the grandmasters riding the sole superpower and
arrayed against their giant nation on the Grand Chessboard! Thus
Russia's quick actions to recognize the independence of the two
appendages of Georgia on August
26, 2008
[7] are predictable micro-moves:

“Bearing
in mind the free expression of their will by the Ossetian and
Abkhazian peoples, and guided by the UN Charter, the declaration of
1970 on the principles of international law regarding friendly
relations between states, the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and other
fundamental international documents I have signed decrees on the
recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by the
Russian Federation.” (Russian President Dmitry Medvedev)

The
fact that the Russian leadership intimately comprehends such
counter-play on the Grand Chessboard is further betrayed in the
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's August
31, 2008
[9] articulation of the core-principles of Russia's foreign policy
going forward: “While implementing the Russian foreign
policy, I will be guided with five principles”. The three
most revealing among them:

Begin
Excerpt

Secondly,
concerning the unacceptability of the new world order: “the
world must be multi-polar. Single polarity is unacceptable, ...
Russia cannot accept a world order, in which any decisions will be
made by a sole nation, even such a serious one as the United States.
Such a world order will be unstable and fraught with conflicts.”

Fourthly,
concerning protecting Russian citizens and Russian business interests
being an absolute priority: “no matter where they live ...
We will also stand up for the interests of our business community
abroad. Everyone must know that an aggression will be deterred”.

Fifthly,
concerning Russia's national security interests in the world: “The
same as other countries, Russia has areas of privileged interests.
These areas house countries, to which we are linked with friendly
ties”.

End
Excerpt

Interestingly,
the other two guiding principles (the first and third, quoted below)
articulated by the Russian President also seem to be calculatingly
constructed, but mainly for the world's public consumption no
different than Zbigniew Brzezinski or the Project for the New
American Century doing so by throwing in some Orwellian platitudes in
their conquest doctrines on the Grand Chessboard. Witness the
expected continuity of Orwell across continents, when primacy is the
unhidden agenda behind “peace” platitudes, in
chronological sequence:

“...
the ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and
visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community.”
(Brzezinski, Grand Chessboard, 1997)

“...
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom
abroad;” (PNAC, Statement of Principles, 1998)

“...
Keeping the American peace requires the U.S. Military to
undertake a broad array of missions today and rise to very different
challenges tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions
without compromising American leadership and the benevolent order
it secures.” (PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 76,
2000)

Russia's
third foreign policy principle: “Russia does not want
isolation [or confrontation with any country]. We will develop as
much as possible friendly relations with Europe, the United States
and other countries of the world,” (President Dmitry
Medvedev, August 31, 2008)

While
the afore-stated latter two Russian aspirations of a resurgent
non-ideological Russia may be genuine statement of principles in a
perfect-world without any hectoring hegemons, self-interests and
survival instincts in the real-world is as much a prime-mover for
Russia as the earlier-cited Albert Wohlstetter's and his legatee
Zbigniew Brzezinski's primacy proposals for “unilateral terror”
are for America!

The
first three American aspirations noted above are surely nothing but
Orwellian, as empirically evidenced over the past 60 years for an
undefeated continually war-mongering America, and as forensically
analyzed elsewhere (here
[10] and here
[11]) and shown to be entirely self-consistent with George Kennan's
1948 Policy Planning paper for the U.S. State Department. America's
foreign policy is entirely predatory, and has been so for at least a
hundred years following upon the heals of the British Empire (see
Rudyard Kipling's 1899 poem The
White Man's Burden
[11a]).

Perhaps
it would do well to rehearse that Darwinian theme here, except that
now, the insidious object of George Kennan's primacy prescription is
the construction of an oligarchic world-government corporate-empire
in a devilishly manufactured “unipolar” world in
which, while initially, the “United States has overstepped
its borders in all spheres -- economic, political and humanitarian
and has imposed itself on other states”, eventually, it
will come to mean only “one thing: one center of power, one
center of force, one center of decision-making, a world of one
master, one sovereign”:

“We
have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population
.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and
resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern
of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of
disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do
so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and
day-dreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated
everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive
ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and
world-benefaction .... We should cease to talk about vague and –
for the Far East – unreal objectives such as human rights, the
raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far
off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The
less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”
(George Kennan, Policy Planning Study 23, 1948)

Considering
that the eloquent description of “unipolar” world
is from Putin's own candid tongue circa February
2007
[12], it is clear that the Russians already well understand George
Kennan's imperial prescription quoted above.

The
Russians also fully realize that only in a multilateral world is
where the rights and privileges of the broad diversity of the peoples
who inhabit this lonely planet, especially the vast majority of its
85% populations who live outside the shores of the Atlantic-powers,
can be safeguarded, including their own!

And,
not living in some fools utopian paradise that runs on lofty
platitudes, they obviously also understand that effective
multilateralism in the predatory Darwinian real world is only
possible through a carefully constructed “balance of terror”
– for after all, “hegemony is as old as mankind”.
This unilateralist principle of all predatory empires, whether
national, monarchic, or oligarchic, the Russians well understand, is
not about to voluntarily change in the next 1000 years!!!

The
CSTO
[13] countries (Belarus, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan) in Russia's backyard united in security guarantees with
Russia since 1992, apparently fully comprehend this reality as
demonstrated by their measured endorsement
[14] of Russia's position on South Ossetia and Abkhazia as
independent nations. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
further noted on September
04, 2008
[15]:

“[Their]
statement support Russia’s actions in the zone of the
Georgian-South Ossetian conflict [and] the active role of Russia in
contributing to peace and cooperation in the Caucasus and call for
ensuring firm security for South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the basis of
the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and other fundamental
documents of international law.”

At
this time however, it is not entirely clear whether the Chinese also
fully comprehend the time-criticalness of making hard new alliances
and security pacts in Asia in order to safeguard their own national
interests. Or, are they merely playing their own measured chess game
on a different time-scale. The SCO countries (Russia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) in China's Asiatic backyard,
united in a difficult to comprehend and rather toothless economic
alliance with China since 2001 (along with the nondescript Mongolia,
Iran, Pakistan, and India superficially participating as observer
countries), concluded their annual meeting on August
28, 2008
[16] with a luke-warm response to the Russian move in its joint
declaration:

“3.
The member states of the SCO express their deep concern in
connection with the recent tension around the issue of South Ossetia,
and call on the relevant parties to resolve existing problems in a
peaceful way through dialogue, to make efforts for reconciliation and
facilitation of negotiations.

The
member states of the SCO welcome the approval on 12 August 2008 in
Moscow of the six principles of settling the conflict in South
Ossetia, and support the active role of Russia in promoting peace
and cooperation in the region.”

With
merely its expression of “deep concern”, and
lip-service support of the “active role of Russia in
promoting peace and cooperation in the region”, China too
must surely also realize that the systematic and devilish
destabilization of Pakistan, the calculating American military
occupation of Afghanistan with repeated forays into Pakistan's
picturesque mountainous regions and the concomitant cold-blooded
barbarous killing of Pakistani civilians in collusion with Pakistan's
own military, are really the un-subtle prelude for the complete
encirclement and orchestrated breakup of their own gigantic Chinese
land-mass alongside Russia! They also cannot possibly be oblivious to
the “carbon-credit” scam being orchestrated largely for
their “economic” benefit. Why China and Russia persist in
dragging their feet in making full spectrum alliances in Asia remains
a major puzzle as already explored in “The
Missing Link - Full Spectrum Deterrence”.
[17]

Indeed,
the remarkable kowtowing to the American definition of “War on
Terror” in the same SCO
[18] declaration, and not recognizing it as a crafty fabrication for
“imperial mobilization” that it actually is, either
betrays a lack of forensic skills and intelligence processing on the
part of the Confucius mind, or a surfeit of wait-until-ready strategy
that is still willing to operate under the global fiction of fight
against terrorism:

“6.
The member states of the SCO express satisfaction at the increased
interaction in fighting terrorism, separatism and extremism in the
framework of the Organisation, and intend to raise cooperation of the
member states in the field of ensuring security to a qualitatively
new level by using the means of the Regional Antiterrorist Structure
of the SCO.

The
member states of the SCO reaffirm their commitment to strengthening
the central coordinating role of the UN in mounting an international
response to the threat of terrorism, to consistent implementation of
the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategy, earliest possible approval
of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism.

The
member states of the SCO are determined to counter the attempts of
spreading terrorist ideology, stand ready to interact closely in
implementing Resolution 1624 of the UN SC, as well as in promoting
dialogue among civilisations and cultures. In this regard it is also
essential to rely on the potential of civil society, business
circles, mass media and non-governmental organisations.”

This
is rather unfortunate for Asia because it means that the SCO is not
in urgent sync with the Russian interests, at least publicly
speaking, and is officially operating under the dominant paradigms du
jour. Indeed, Russia too continues to carry forward the same fiction
of “war on terror”!

When
will both Russia and China come forward and announce that 9/11 was an
inside job and that the “war on terror” is an oligarchic
fiction to create revolutionary times across the planet?

The
leaders of these two largest land mass of Asia cannot be unaware of
the impetus for one-world government in baby-steps.

Their
own national survival as sovereign states depends on this fictitious
war being terminated and America being forced to retreat from their
borders!

Or,
America stays put encircling them, and further acquiring military
bases in the remaining countries of the world in the on-going pretext
of fighting the evil “terrorists” which both Russia and
China are helping perpetuate themselves!

These
egregious acts of omission and commision therefore can lead to the
only inescapable rational conclusion possible. That both the Russian
and Chinese political and economic leadership are in on the one-world
government agenda. That today, they are as fictitious a combatant of
the West as during the Cold War. And they certainly stand to benefit
in this first of its kind global hegemony, as that new concoction of
world government is the final merging of super-capitalism and
super-communism. In this New World Order, the oligarchy own the
world, and administer it as they have learnt in their previous
experiments in communism and despotism over the past century. It is
today a well known fact that the financiers of both fascism and
communism in the twentieth century were the Western capitalists. Some
of the tortuous characteristics of the coming world order are already
visible to the farsighted, but for those who enjoy good cinema and
learn about the world vicariously, may be glimpsed in the two
allegorical cinematic depiction based on 1984
by George Orwell and A
Brave New World
by Aldous Huxley. [19]

It
is hard to accurately gauge the Russian and Chinese geostrategic mind
in the long term. One might remain cognizant though that while
Zbigniew Brzezinski may have written the modern bible on primacy, The
Grand Chessboard, in America, chess was invented in Asia.

For
the near term, i.e., within our lifetime, only in the twain secondary
Asiatic superpowers immediately uniting in their mutual self-defense
against the marauding sole superpower to immediately create a
formidable “balance of terror” (both military and
economic), can both nations today provide relative security, peace,
and a fair treatment for their respective peoples. Only in their
concerted strategic full spectrum alliance can they prevent the
genocidal slaughter of their populations under the population
reduction regime which will surpass what was grotesquely witnessed in
the two world wars of the twentieth century.

And,
in their attempted full-spectrum self-defense of their own nations,
also end up securing the rest of humanity in Asia and Africa for a
more robust periphery, guaranteed access to natural resources, and
equitable trade! Instead of the fictitious Cold War of the last half
of the twentieth century, a real multilateral “balance of
terror” can ensure the survival of mankind.

What
an insanity – only the diligent and un-ending pursuit of
selfishly securing one's own survival against all Darwinian predators
through a “balance of terror” encourages the
securing of the otherwise dispensable weaklings in one's
neighborhood, in a perpetual full-spectrum check on the Grand
Chessboard!

What
prophet Moses could not accomplish with the Ten Commandments,
equitable co-existence with others, “balance of terror”
does! Even the lowly
buffalos
[20] know it! Surely so must nationalistic Russia and China! And in
this clash of the super-titans where “safety will be the
sturdy child of terror and survival the twin brother of annihilation”
[21], the smaller nations can perhaps harvest some cunning breathing
space for themselves in order to exist peacefully in precarious
balance without becoming a tasty meal of the hectoring hegemon!

These
smaller nations can of course also act as moronic patsies and remain
front-line surrogate battle grounds for the titans! Or, they can
conclude rational treaties with other nations which are, first and
foremost, in their own public's best interests!

If
mere platitudes, or ardent appeals to reason or compassion, could
ever bring about fairness in international relations (or in the
wielding of hegemonic power through its modern day instruments of
“international institutions” like the World Bank, IMF,
the United Nations), there should have been heaven on earth for the
past 3000 years, at least ever since the advent of the Ten
Commandments and the Biblical Golden Rule “do unto others as
you others do unto you”! And certainly since the founding
of the United Nations in mankind's blood after two world wars amidst
new platitudes of peace, security, and human rights. The passage from
Kennan's PPS 23 quoted earlier lends only partial insight into the
reality behind those platitudes. The agenda of these “international
institutions” has all along been the gradual usurpation of
national sovereignty and vesting all legal authority in these
supra-national institutions as the baby-steps towards one-world
government.

This
being the unvarnished reality-space of international relations behind
all the Newspeak and obviously understood by the actual international
players (as opposed to by the public for whose benefit their Newspeak
exists), what then must have been the primal American hegemons'
motivation to engage Russia at this time, even before their oft
stated goal of destroying Iran is launched? As observed by this
scribe in “Georgia-Russia:
It's a Classic Brzezinski Project!”:

“The
one forensic explanation which wholly and rationally explains this
(mis)adventure by Georgia is that from the Anglo-American
perspective, it was a trap set for the Russians to behave exactly as
they did. The Georgians and Ossetians are just disposable canon
fodder – patsies like the Afghanis before them.

...
Additionally, keeping Russia busy on its flank while engaging Iran –
if indeed Iran is actually to be bombed by Israel and/or the massive
US naval armada now besieging her – makes short term military
sense.”

Why
is “keeping Russia busy on its flank” in order to
decimate Iran necessary? The only forensic explanation that continues
to make any strategic sense, is that Russia was effectively
preventing the American-Israeli attack on Iran. It matters little
precisely how, so long as it remains a covert Russian move that the
hectoring hegemons have been made well aware of.

One
however overtly observes the Russians easily neutralizing Israel's
supposed setting up of Georgia as their (Israel's) recon-refueling
launch-pad for attacking Iran. Was this neutralizing just a
side-effect of the Russian intervention? Is such a launch-pad even
essential for attacking Iran? How about Western news headlines
[22] like “Russia threatens to supply Iran with top new
missile system as 'cold war' escalates”? Or Russian public
denials
[23] like “No covert Russian arms sales to Iran, other
region”?

I
think all these are red-herrings for public consumption which are at
best, mere posturing moves. And at worst, sacrificial pawns at the
expense of Georgia-Ossetia and Iran! Apart from the overt
Anglo-American policy of Russian-Chinese full encirclement which has
no urgent immediacy to warrant precipitating such a deliberate
crisis, the key raison d'être for engaging Russia in Georgia in
this gratuitous war appears to be Russia's behind-the-scenes
effective obstruction in preventing American-Israeli decimation of
Iran!

In
effect, if one reflects on real deterrence with teeth, it hardly
matters where the Russian 'S-300' self-defense missiles are
physically located, if Iran and Russia have concluded a covert
security agreement! Israel also clearly does not require any
intermediate launch-pad capability in Georgia solely to decimate
Iran!

Therefore,
logically speaking, and without any actual receipts in hand but
knowing that “Deception is the state of mind, and the mind
of the State” and therefore, whatever is made manifest by
the Mighty Wurlitzer in the newsmedia is but a public-relations
shadow-play of the far more grotesque reality of behind the scenes
power-play, manufacturing this unnecessary crisis now has one
rational purpose. Enabling the long-planned attack on Iran which
propaganda warfare alone is evidently not enabling!

And
because of Russia's obduracy, her direct engagement has apparently
become urgently necessary! No other geostrategic reason, while
arguable, can display this timeline of urgency!

Putin's
plausible conjecture that it may have been American Presidential
election related is arguable because both the presidential candidates
serve common masters and have common advisors! There is, after all,
even a Brzezinski in each camp! Thus, this un-imaginative Brzezinski
project in Georgia is mainly to divert Russia from Iran in a
high-stakes game of poker, with a quid pro quo as the immediate
anticipated reward. Namely, we'll back off from your backyard if you
stop interfering in the attack on Iran! Otherwise, we'll foment more
of the same!

Nothing
else makes military or strategic sense, despite the fact that there
are some analysts who feel that a different behind-the-scenes power
faction, the so called “Brzezinski” faction, has already
taken over the reins of power in Washington at the expense of the
Dick-Cheney centered neo-cons who were largely fixated with the
Middle East and oil. These analysts mistakenly conclude that the new
mandarins would rather use Iran to fight Russia in a global proxy war
and thus destroy them both in a conflagration on a much larger
geopolitical canvas. I don't believe this mild differentiation to be
true, or even relevant, because the documented evidence in the
architects' own hand-writings suggest that there is little difference
in the 'ubermensch' imperatives outlined by George Kennan in 1948,
Albert Wohlstetter in 1958, Brzezinski in 1997, PNAC in 1998, all the
documents from AEI and other think-tanks in the interim, the White
House's own Nuclear Posture Review in 2002 which simultaneously
targeted Russia and China alongside Iran and Syria for preemptive
nuclear warfare, and the barbaric hegemonic conquests empirically
displayed by the United States since 2001 until today, all of which
together are merely pretexts to create the “revolutionary
times” needed to cement one-world government. It is apt to
remind oneself of the famous protocol statement of David Ben-Gurion:
“what is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
revolutionary times”. Any hair-splitting in tactics is only
that – evolving “revolutionary times” to
match the state of the game on the Grand Chessboard without any
fundamental difference in overarching objective! And its antidote
therefore, also remains the same – full spectrum alliance!
Everything else are planted red herrings!

The
full-spectrum conquest strategies of the hectoring hegemons are
formed and fleshed out at Pentagon surrogates like the private Rand
Corporation, and in the privatized covert-ops rooms of tax exempt
foundations and non-profit think-tanks led by the private Council on
Foreign Relations whose membership comprises the who's who of
American military-industrial-financial-media complex. The story of
the role of CFR in synthesizing both domestic and international
policy which is simply rubber-stamped by Congress and signed by the
President can be read in Eustace Mullins, Gary Allen, Douglas Reed,
Antony Sutton, Carroll Quigley, etceteras (see Recommended Reading at
the end of The
Poor-Man's Guide To Modernity). These conquest
strategies are no longer individual-centric even though they are led
by prominent individuals in every generation, but rather, have been
made institutional-centric. And quite bipartisan, with common
financiers who fund all sides in every generation. Which explains the
uncanny longevity of these hegemonic aspirations for world government
and persistent similarities in policy articulations across
generations of conniving planners and political leaders regardless of
which political party they belong to.

Unlike
the empires of yore, anyone brilliant and skilled enough is invited
(or coerced) to join this new world order enterprise in the lower
hierarchies so long as they are agreeable to play by the imperial
rules and can help extend 'empire'. Participants are offered rich
rewards and glorification. Detractors are easily co-opted into
acquiescence. A former FBI agent rightly observed of this state of
affairs: 'Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small
group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in
all walks of life were “in on the take” and were willing
to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses
behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in
building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money
(together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate,
or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a
world-wide basis.' (W. Cleon Skoussen, The Naked Capitalist, pg.
6)

The
differing aspects which gain prominence at different times with new
front-faces representing them, are but sub-facets of the same
overarching strategic goal: world-government! By any other name,
empire! Not a nationalistic one, but a global oligarchic one where
independent nation-states are made obsolete in preference for
geographic administrative domains as in “Mafioso territories”,
and all implementing the same “rule of law” handed them
by the financing “families”! The modern vernacular
“International Relations” is merely the refined Newspeak
to bring about this state of affairs.

It
matters little which 'ubermensch' tactical facet of conquest is
realized in which order, except to the victims – some “feel
the pain” of extortion and death sooner than others! Russia
must surely recognize this after the 1990s
[24] neo-liberal looting of its precious national assets by its
magnanimous IMF “friends”. The former chairman of the IMF
in Moscow had even sanguinely noted: “It was the price which
Russia paid for moving forward”. The second round for
further “moving forward” in the 21st century is
just around the corner!

Even
if Russia has recognized this blatant reality and is willing to play
aggressively in self-defense as demonstrated by their public
statements and acts in this crisis, can a geostrategically rich but
quite defenseless Iran continue to informally count on Russia in the
complex calculus of geostrategic alliances without any overt security
and bilateral economic treaties as envisioned by Project
Humanbeingsfirst?
[25] [26]

If
Russia in fact continues to play its own self-defense game astutely
and her independent behavior during this crisis intervention in
Georgia is not a temporary aberration, then the answer is YES. For
Russia has no other rational choice but to unequivocally attempt to
secure Asia from the predatory impulses of the Anglo-Saxons and their
new European Allies seeking world-government to be run by the global
oligarchic elite!

So
what can Iran do to help nudge this rational tide urgently in its own
favor?

Offer
the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian, to the Russians, or to the Chinese
– perhaps a hundred year lease of all its riches, patrolling
rights, transit rights, and parts of its territories for military
bases, to the highest bidder between them! If the Americans and
Israelis can be present in Georgia, Poland, and in all the NATO
countries by making legal treaties, why can't Russia and China be in
NATO like treaty arrangement with Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Africa, and
South America? While Pakistan is already lost to the hectoring
hegemons, Iran is the next target.

Even
grandmaster Zbigniew Brzezinski had outlined a plausible scenario for
the United States to launch an attack on Iran in his bizarre
testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February
1, 2007,
for the first time publicly admitting that the United States
government can conduct false-flag operations and tell bold
myth-making lies to fabricate “doctrinal motivation”
in order to pursue his previously outlined “imperial
mobilization” agendas on The Grand Chessboard: [27]

'If
the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody
involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is
likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world
of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with
Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by
accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some
provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran;
culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against
Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening
quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan.

A
mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a
protracted and potentially expanding war is already being
articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in
Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive
ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier
collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist
extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat
posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the
equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s
involvement in World War II.

This
simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was
based on the military power of the industrially most advanced
European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the
resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but
also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast,
most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an
isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged
in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi
state; while Iran—though gaining in regional influence—is
itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To
argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider
Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a
self-fulfilling prophecy.'

That
chutzpatic bold admission carried on CSPAN was watched by this scribe
in amazement – blaming the Bush Administration for their
self-serving myth-making demagogic narratives to enable wars of
aggression as “self-fulfilling prophecy”, when the
sole superpower in every government is only following his own recipe
for “American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”,
was outright disingenuous (like Hitler blaming his generals for
following Mein Kampf and Goebbels for propaganda). And it never made
it to the 7 o clock evening news!

As
Congressman Ron Paul had rightly opined about Iran on the House floor
in January 2007
[28]:

'The
truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a
significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to
invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel.'

And
realistically, as a rather un-industrialized third-world country on
its economic tethers with the only real indigenous expertise being
manufacturing of fine carpets, collectible handicrafts, and delicious
pistachios – a sweet peoples with a sweet tooth and fine tastes
– Iran can ill afford, and is ill capable of building its own
effective military deterrence against a first-world nuclear predator
in the short or any foreseeable term. Especially with strangulating
economic sanctions limiting its capacity in all aspects of
industrial, economic, and high-tech development – despite
Iran's long
bravados
[29] which only seem to rival Sadaam Hussein's in their infantility!
Iran can hardly even respond
[30] effectively to the systematic destabilization covert-ops upon
its vast territories being run out of neighboring Baluchistan, in
Pakistan!

Without
internationally proclaimed, and legally ratified full spectrum
alliances that equitably benefit all parties in the pact – and
in which all are stake-holders who equally stand to lose something
valuable to them if the treaty is violated – Iran awaits the
fate of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan!

Covert
assurances and unilateral secretive guarantees are ephemeral and can
vanish in a twinkle on the Grand Chessboard. Just as the famous
American Sixth Fleet did in 1971 in the Bay of Bengal when West
Pakistan, as member of SEATO/CENTO and under verbal assurances of
security guarantees, expectantly awaited American military assistance
to counter the Indian intervention in what was then East Pakistan.

Failure
to accurately gauge, and astutely play the great game on the 'Grand
Chessboard' in one's own self-interest like virtuoso maestros caught
between “two scorpions in a bottle”, albeit even
as lowly pawns, can trivially lead to pawn-sacrifice. And empiricism
betrays that a single scorpion is always worse than two or more
competing ones held in perpetual stalemate.

Iran
and Russia make natural Asiatic allies with common enemies to get a
real Asian Military-Economic Alliance kick-started against the
primacy of the financiers from the Global North. What are they
waiting for? What is their public waiting for?

Reprint License

All
material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with
full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety,
unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted in perpetuity,
provided the source URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part
of this restricted Reprint License, along with any embedded links within its
main text, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license
violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html. All figures, images,
quotations and excerpts, are used without permission based on
non-profit "fair-use" for personal education and research
use only in the greater public interest, documenting crimes
against humanity, deconstructing current affairs, and scholarly
commentary. The usage by Project Humanbeingsfirst of all external
material is minimally consistent with the understanding of "fair
use" laws at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html.
Project Humanbeingsfirst does not endorse any external website or organization it links to or references, nor those that may link to it or reprint its works.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of US Copyright Laws, you
are provided the material from Project Humanbeingsfirst upon your
request, and taking any action that delivers you any of its documents
in any form is considered making a specific request to receive the
documents for your own personal educational and/or research use. You
are directly responsible for seeking the requisite permissions from
other copyright holders for any use beyond “fair use”.